Standing Committee F

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I want to state my regret that our sitting runs simultaneously with a debate that relates to Northern Ireland business in Westminster Hall. Other members of the Committee would like to attend those proceedings, but I am duty bound to do so. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I shall be absent.
 If there are channels that you can use to highlight this unsatisfactory situation, Mr. Pike, I hope that you will bring it to the attention of the business managers so that, if possible, they can show due regard to avoiding such a double booking in future.

Peter Pike: As you will realise, Mr. Öpik, that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. However, I will certainly make the Leader of the House aware of it. As a member of the Liaison Committee, I can say that Select Committees choose Thursday sittings in Westminster Hall for their debates. The view of the Leader of the House has been that the usual channels should not be involved in those decisions.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Before the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) leaves the Room, I should bring it to the Committee's attention that the Leader of the House, in his business statement earlier today, made it clear that the Bill would have only one day for its final stages on the Floor of the House. You will be aware that, whatever progress we make this afternoon—I certainly expect that we will reach the end of the Bill—the Committee will not have considered 36 clauses of the Bill or seven schedules to it.
 That situation is much to be regretted. It is a product of not only the outline programme approved by the House to finish today at 5 o'clock, but of the knives that the Government chose to put into the programme motion. We are likely to have spare time this afternoon in which it will be impossible to revisit the clauses that we did not have a chance to debate. I hope, Mr. Pike, that you can report to the Leader of the House, and that he will report to the Speaker, that this state of affairs is thoroughly unsatisfactory and needs urgent review.

Peter Pike: As you, too, will recognise, Mr. Blunt, that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I shall ensure that your concerns are drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House. As a member of the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, I know that that Committee will consider how programming works. I noted similar points to yours, Mr. Blunt, when I chaired the Committee that considered the Education Bill. The view of the Modernisation Committee and the whole
 House is that we want to improve scrutiny of legislation. If we can improve the system, I hope that your point will be taken into context. You will appreciate that the Leader of the House is also the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.

Tony McWalter: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) complained this morning that he could not revisit clause 13 in a debate on schedule 13, despite a reference in that schedule to that clause. Was his grievance in order or would it have been appropriate for him to express reservations about clause 13 during the debate on schedule 13?

Peter Pike: The Committee agreed to a programming motion at the outset of our sittings, and that has been varied at least once. I cannot make a retrospective decision about something that has already been decided. It can of course be revisited on Report, when hon. Members may want to move amendments to the clause or the schedule. However, I do not have the power to change the timetable that the Committee agreed to.
 Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 209, in page 67, line 39, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Mallon.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we may take amendment No. 291, in page 68, line 13, leave out subsection (4).

Des Browne: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Pike, for our afternoon's deliberations. When the Committee rose this morning we were debating amendment No. 209 and I had made the point, in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), that we should be relying on the knowledge and expertise of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his deputy to lead the transition to the new dispensation, as I think my hon. Friend refers to it. As a Minister, I have every confidence in the current director and deputy director in Northern Ireland. That confidence is shared by the entire Government and the Attorney-General, who specifically asked to be associated with such an expression of confidence. Both those officers have discharged their responsibilities in the extremely difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland with complete professionalism and fairness.
 Amendment No. 291 would remove the transitional provision that is designed to allow the DPP for Northern Ireland to roll out the new functions of the service incrementally by geographical area and class of case. We are fully committed to ensuring that there will be an orderly roll-out of the Public Prosecution Service's new functions. Standards in the administration of justice must be maintained throughout the relevant period, during which a massive programme of change will take place. The provision will be central to ensuring that the service has the confidence of the public and that it meets the test in relation to the review, which, helpfully, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) continually 
 reminds us about. Indeed, the review group noted that point in the report. 
 The Public Prosecution Service will have to increase in size significantly to meet the demands of its new functions. I can build on the contribution of the hon. Member for Reigate by giving the Committee the current projections for the service's work load. The service, which now considers about 11,000 case files a year—I appreciate that that is not the same as 11,000 prosecutions—will have to take on an estimated 80,000 case files. That is a daunting degree of change on any scale of measurement. The desire for care in the progress of the change is to be reflected in the management of it. 
 The staff needed to carry out the work must be recruited and thoroughly trained. Unfortunately, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh way wish, that cannot be done overnight; nor, sensibly, can we guarantee a time within which such trained staff will be appointed. I do not think that it was implicit in his amendment that we should be able to do that, and I suspect that he understands that no such certainty can be given to a process that requires the recruitment and training of professional people to carry out this work. For good practical reasons, the process will have to take place incrementally, so that quality staff are recruited and trained at each stage before moving on to the next phase of expansion. 
 It is strange that those who are keen to draw to our attention the implications of the Glidewell report are so quick to want to remove this provision, which addresses concerns that they have expressed. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to recommendation 30, but he will see that on page 23 of the implementation plan the Government have coupled that recommendation with recommendation 66, which states: 
''We recommend that those who are considering the resource implications and the organisational issues arising from our proposals in respect of the prosecution function should examine the Glidewell Report, with a view to seeing whether there are lessons to be learnt from the experience of England and Wales.''
 The hon. Member for Reigate accurately summarised the principal lesson to be learned from the Glidewell report, which is that to try to achieve our aims in a kind of big bang, with a fresh start date, as a one off, was calculated to result in disaster.

Lady Hermon: It is nice to see you back here this afternoon for our last sitting, Mr. Pike.
 May I ask the Minister to address one matter that lies behind the subject that we are discussing? The media have called the provisions a new beginning to the criminal justice system but, if I recall correctly, the whole idea of the review was to modernise the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. I have a copy of the Minister's statement on 12 November 2001, in which he said: 
''As one of the cornerstones of the Agreement, the review of criminal justice will deliver a modern, progressive and forward-looking system of justice for the people Northern Ireland.''
 That was what I had understood was the aim from the criminal justice review. The expression, ''a new beginning'' sews the seeds of an expectation of a big-bang approach and that new people will be installed as director and deputy director, although that was not the intention of the review.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for emphasising the point that I sought to make, although perhaps not as explicitly as she has done. In her careful research, she may have read the comments that I have made repeatedly about this process: there is no implicit or explicit criticism of the criminal justice system in this process. Indeed, my understanding of the review was that it did not seek to criticise the status quo.
 I have made it clear that the intention in modernising the system of criminal justice and pursuing objectives that would make the system more responsive to the modern appreciation of the needs of society, including the needs of children and victims, is to build on what exists, rather than to replace it. In the course of this short but important debate, I have tried to explain that we think it is worth building on, because it has great value. In respect of the director and deputy director, we feel that we have the right people in the right place to lead us through the transitional phase to a modern and greatly expanded Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. 
 Let me close with a few remarks on the question of deadlines. Common sense shows, even without the benefit of the Glidewell report, that it would be impossible for the Government to set absolute deadlines for the completion of the process. The transitional arrangement that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh seeks to remove from the Bill is designed to ensure that the expertise of the current office holders is available to carry us into the new service. 
 We are certainly not envisaging making any appointments before the clauses are commenced, but if a vacancy for either of the positions arises before devolution, appointments would be made by open competition, as such appointments are made at present. However, nobody is planning for such vacancies to arise and it is our hope and expectation that they will not and that we will be able to rely on the expertise and experience of those in post. 
 As I have already said, administrative arrangements are in hand to prepare the service for this transition. To have begun such arrangements was not presumption on the part of the Government, because however much the detail of the provisions needs to be debated, there is no opposition to them from any part of society in Northern Ireland or any political party. It was broadly expected that we would make the transition. 
 With open hands I offer to brief my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member on the progress that we are making with the preparation for the transition at any time, so that he can reassure himself that there is a proper timescale, work is being conducted at a proper rate and nobody is dragging their feet on the matter. In 
 the light of those assurances and in the face of those arguments I ask my hon. Friend, whom I know to be a man of great common sense, to withdraw the amendment.

Seamus Mallon: It would be churlish indeed of me, given the Minister's generous offer, to pursue the two amendments, but churlish I will be. I accept the sincerity of the Minister's assurances. There is no question that he is a man of his word. That is a rarity in political life nowadays.

Crispin Blunt: In my experience of political life I have found most Members of this House and other politicians to be men of their word—[Hon. Members: ''And women.'']—I meant that collectively. The hon. Member for North Down is looking daggers at me.
 The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and I have made common cause on the issue of the prosecution supplying information to victims and being required to give reasons when it drops proceedings. That is a much more important issue than that of the practical transfer to the DPP and I hope that we will be able to continue to make common cause on it, because it concerns the accountability of the DPP.

Seamus Mallon: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I was implying that the Minister was the only honourable person in politics.
 However, churlish I must be on this issue, because a lot of exaggeration is taking place. I did not recommend any big bangs—I do not see the Bill in terms of a big bang, nor would it be possible to implement it in those terms. I think that I made that clear. However, I do not want a series of little whimpers either, and the wording of the parts of the Bill affected by the amendments is not the stuff that legislation is made of. The Director of Public Prosecutions will consider when it is ''reasonably practical'' to comply with the duty and he will have control over when and to what extent he does so. I do not believe that that is how we should do things. There is an urgency about this matter and, because it is the flagship of the Bill, the situation should not be left in a state of limbo.

Tony McWalter: Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that, historically, there has been a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, which has meant that the control that Members of Parliament exert over those who implement legislation in England has sometimes been lacking in the Northern Ireland process for a series of reasons? With this new dispensation, there should be sufficient democratic control over the process of implementing legislation so that the fears that he expressed—fears that might have been justified when there was insufficient democratic control—should not exist in future.

Seamus Mallon: I take the point that those fears should not exist. It is not so long ago that other hon. Members and I sat in a Committee Room like this one, dealing with a similar piece of legislation, the outcome of which tended to disprove the faith that my hon. Friend's comment reveals. I believe that he suffered as much as I did in that connection.
 I am talking not about big bangs, but about tightening an essential piece of legislation and inserting some newness into it. I cast no aspersions on the DPP or deputy DPP. For the life of me I could not say who either of them is, so there is nothing personal in my amendment. However, there is something wrong because it might be 30 years before this part of the Bill is implemented, which is too long. Many of us in Committee would not even live to see that, yet it is the cornerstone of the whole new approach. There are ways, which have been applied before, of allowing natural justice to apply to the incumbent DPP or deputy DPP, while abiding by the recommendations in the criminal justice review. I emphasise that I have no lack of confidence in the DPP, but from experience, if I were the DPP or deputy DPP and heard such overt expressions of confidence from the Government and the Attorney-General, I would take a quick look in my filing cabinet to see where my P45 was. 
 I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I urge the Committee to support the amendment. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 291, in page 68, line 13, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Mallon.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88 - Statutory rules

Des Browne: I beg to move amendment No. 302, in page 69, line 12, after '10(4)', insert 'or 71(1), (3), (7) or (8)'.

Peter Pike: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in page 69, line 12, after '10(4)', insert 'or 85(1)'.
 Government amendment No. 303.

Des Browne: During Tuesday evening's debate on clause 71, concern was expressed at the lack of detail coming before Parliament on the membership of local community safety partnerships. Amendment No. 302 will require the order that establishes community safety partnerships to be subject to affirmative resolution. That will afford an opportunity for further scrutiny when the Northern Ireland Executive's review of public administration is complete, and we are in a position to firm up partnership, membership and structures. Amendment No. 303 leaves clause 71(2) subject to negative resolution, because it deals only with the name change and it is not necessary to subject that to such anxious scrutiny. I ask that those amendments be made.
 Amendment No. 179 would require every provision in the Bill to be commenced by affirmative order, which would be completely unprecedented. I suspect that the hon. Member for Reigate is using the amendment not to achieve that objective, but to debate it and other issues. The amendment would place an undue burden on Parliament and delay the implementation process by requiring every provision to be commenced by affirmative order. Where further parliamentary scrutiny is necessary, or desirable, we have provided for it, as illustrated by amendment No. 302. 
 I understand from the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 179 is a probing amendment, although he may have changed his position and I do not bind him to it. My understanding, however, is that he seeks clarification on how the Bill's provisions will be commenced and how devolution will be organised. This might be a good opportunity to explain how the mechanics for transferring the Bill's provisions to the devolved institutions will work when the time comes. I trust, Mr. Pike, that you will consider such remarks to be in order. I believe that they are relevant to our debate. I understand hon. Members' uncertainty about how the Bill will work, and I hope to explain why it is drafted as it is. My explanation will take a little time, but I am sure that hon. Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate, at whose request I am making it. 
 Hon. Members will know that the division between what is devolved to Stormont and what is retained at Westminster is governed by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Broadly, everything is devolved—in the terminology of the 1998 Act it is ''transferred''—except those matters set out in schedules 2 and 3 to the Act. Schedule 2 contains ''excepted matters''. They deal with issues such as national security and will not be devolved under the scheme of the 1998 Act. Schedule 3 to the Act covers matters that are reserved. Those are currently dealt with at Westminster, although the Assembly could legislate on them with the consent of the Secretary of State. 
 Executive functions in relation to those matters lie with the Government. 
 Criminal justice matters are generally reserved. Under the original Northern Ireland Act provisions, judicial appointments were excepted matters. The review recommended changing that, and it was achieved under clause 81 of the Bill. Once a decision is taken to devolve matters from the reserved to the transferred field, a number of steps have to be taken to effect the change. Those steps are set out in sections 4 and 86 of the Northern Ireland Act. Section 4 provides that the Northern Ireland Assembly must first pass a resolution, with cross-community support, praying that the matter concerned should cease to be a reserved matter. The Government may then lay before Parliament a draft Order in Council to amend schedule 3 to the Act. That is effectively an affirmative resolution instrument. There will be prior consultation, and a debate in both Houses. If the Order in Council is approved by Parliament, Her Majesty may then make the order. 
 Once a matter has been moved from the reserved to the transferred field, the Assembly can pass Bills dealing with it without the approval of the Secretary of State. On its own, however, a section 4 order will not transfer existing executive functions to the devolved institutions. For that, we will use an order made under section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act. Section 86 orders are also Orders in Council. The Northern Ireland Act states that they may, among other things, 
''make provision for transferring to a Northern Ireland authority, with effect from any date specified in the Order . . . any functions which immediately before that date are exercisable by a United Kingdom authority and appear to Her Majesty to be concerned with a matter which is a transferred matter''.
 Once criminal justice has been devolved by an order made under section 4, a transfer of functions order made under section 86 will transfer specific powers from UK authorities to Northern Ireland authorities by name. 
 Consequential matters such as funding could also be covered by a section 86 order. Westminster will not provide funding for matters that are in the devolved field. References to funding being provided by Parliament will therefore disappear. That is why we did not set out in the Bill what the financial arrangements would be after devolution. 
 As it stands, the Bill includes a variety of provisions. Some may come into force before devolution and then be transferred, while others will come into force only after devolution. For the latter provisions—basically, the Judicial Appointments Commission and the new Law Officer arrangements—the Bill already sets out where functions will lie. The main political input from the Northern Ireland Administration will be from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—I shall say this quietly, in case the hon. Member for North Down intervenes on me—acting jointly. 
 In the case of provisions that may come into force before devolution, such as the prosecution service, the Law Commission and the criminal justice inspectorate, the Bill sets out how they will work before devolution. We decided not to include in the Bill provisions 
 explaining how things will work post devolution, for the very good reason that we do not know exactly what the post-devolution arrangements will look like. For example, the Executive might decide to create a department of justice—the issue is discussed in the review, where a recommendation is made—or split the responsibilities between two departments. We do not want the Bill to contain provisions that pre-judge decisions to be taken in consultation with the Northern Ireland parties at the proper time. Those who know the structure of the Executive in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, of those in Scotland and Wales, although I am not so familiar with Wales—will know that departments there do not reflect, in terms of responsibilities, the divisions that there are in Westminster. The Executive and the Assembly have the right to decide their own order of priority and their own arrangements. 
 As a result, the Bill is littered with references to the Secretary of State. I assure hon. Members that almost all of those will disappear on devolution by means of the section 86 transfer of functions order. The only references that will remain after devolution are those that concern the Secretary of State's remaining responsibilities. The only example is the reference to the Secretary of State's order- making power under clause 29(2), and some consequential references to the Secretary of State in the associated schedule 7. 
 We considered whether to include specific powers in the Bill setting out how devolution in this area should work. Although that might have had presentational advantages for the lay reader—if there is such a thing in relation to a Bill—we were keen not to duplicate the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which have a certain elegance and have been tried and tested in setting up devolution. To some degree, the provisions have their roots in many years' worth of consideration in Scotland, via the Scottish constitutional convention. Those of us who were in favour of devolution learned the lesson of an early attempt to devolve government to Scotland in a different way. This short history is for those who do not know what happened. 
 The previous attempt at a Scotland Act sought to list the functions that were being devolved in schedules to the Act. That occupied the Committee for endless, tedious hours, as people argued around the margins of the provisions. Attempts to introduce lists into the Bill inevitably created a lot of anomalies, and many things were left out. Our best endeavours to list what was transferred were unsuccessful. We learned that lesson and the provisions in the Scotland Act 1998 that are now, to some degree, reflected in the Northern Ireland Act, seek to devolve by reference not to the powers that are being transferred but to those that are being retained. That is a significantly smaller list, when it comes to individual functions. 
 I hope that that attempt at an explanation is of some help to the Committee and to all our lay readers, whoever they may be. I have endeavoured to address in a short time issues that have—rightly—exercised some members of the Committee, and I hope that I have made them clear.

Crispin Blunt: I thank the Minister for his elegant explanation of the issues. I understand why he had to give it at this stage. It would have been helpful had I understood those issues before, however, because it would have saved me tabling a large number of amendments to delete the Secretary of State's name at various stages. None the less, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. He used the words ''certain elegance'' to describe previous Northern Ireland legislation, and I wonder whether that choice of words was suggested to him by advisers who had something to do with drafting the legislation in the first place.
 The purpose of amendment No. 179 was to ensure that the House could express its view when the Government—whoever was in power at the time—made a devolution order. It is plain from the Minister's explanation that the Bill will achieve what I seek to achieve, so I shall not press my amendment. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 303, in page 69, line 15, leave out '71' and insert '71(2)'.—[Mr. Browne.] 
 Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 89 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4 - Reserved matters: new institutions

'In Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c.47) (reserved matters)— 
 (a) after paragraph 9 insert— 
 ''9A The Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland.'', and 
 (b) after paragraph 15 insert— 
 ''15A The Northern Ireland Law Commission.''.'.—[Mr. Browne.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Des Browne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate for inspiring this new clause. It adds the criminal justice inspectorate and the Law Commission to the list of organisations in schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which I referred when talking about devolution. 
 The new clause makes it clear that those bodies fall within the reserved field before the devolution of justice matters, and it will allow them to be transferred on devolution. It is essentially a technical measure, which is designed to facilitate the devolution of those bodies in due course and to respond to an issue raised by the hon. Gentleman by removing what confusion there may have been.

Crispin Blunt: I should like to put on record my gratitude to the Minister for acknowledging that the new clause arose directly from our proceedings, which have, therefore, improved the Bill in a small way. We should remember that it is important to go through legislation comprehensively in Committee. It is impossible for any Government to be all-knowing at the beginning of a process, and the Committee has
 played an important part in delivering the Bill. It is a matter of regret that we have been unable to examine all of it.
 Question put and agreed to 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Des Browne: I thank you, Mr. Pike, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Conway, for your obvious skill, your good humour and the light touch with which you have chaired our deliberations during the past three weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks of the House for their direction and supervision of our proceedings, both in Committee and in preparation for it. Many of us have cause to thank them. Once again, they have lived up to their enviable reputation for excellence. I also want to extend thanks to those who have so faithfully recorded our proceedings. They may largely be hidden, but their service is greatly appreciated and valued.
 Despite the fact that we have dealt with some difficult and sensitive subjects—the temperature rose slightly on one occasion, but that matter has now been resolved—I am grateful for the way in which all members of the Committee have conducted themselves, and for the nature of our proceedings. I appreciate the contribution that hon. Members have made to our consideration and understanding of the Bill. 
 As the Committee draws to a close, it would be useful to state my appreciation for the way in which the Bill has generally been handled. Proceedings in Committee have borne out the assessment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who suggested on Second Reading that the vast majority of the provisions would be useful to the population of Northern Ireland as a whole and were recognised as such. There are obvious areas of strong disagreement, and I do not want to minimise them, but the Bill leaves the Committee with fairly widespread support. That is true of at least the principles that lie behind it, if not all its details. 
 There has been much discussion about time allocated for scrutiny, and I want to make a few points on that, as it would be inappropriate for me to leave the Committee without doing so. The Government's decision to allocate three weeks for scrutiny in Committee in the House of Commons was taken carefully in the light of the size of the Bill and the main aspects of dispute. I think that our proceedings largely bear out the Government's judgment, but I recognise that that view will not be shared throughout the Committee. 
 Of the Bill's 91 clauses, 59 have been scrutinised, as have nine of its 13 schedules. The debates have been full and careful. Indeed, our early rate of progress would have required about a day for each three clauses. I have not been aware that hon. Members have felt restricted by the debates and unable to put across points that they wanted to make. 
 Throughout the process, the Government have sought to smooth the Bill's passage. We did so first by ensuring that it was published in advance and in draft, to enable considerable pre-parliamentary scrutiny. Whatever one does in relation to such matters, it is always criticised for not being enough. However, compared to the level of scrutiny of some legislation introduced by previous Governments, the Bill's level of scrutiny has been unprecedented. 
 As a Minister, I have been responsible for the decisions that have led to an open and unprecedented approach on briefing the Opposition and others on the content of the Bill. I opened my offer to every political party with an interest in our proceedings. As a result, the Bill that we have examined has been in excellent shape. We have had to take up the Committee's time with only a relatively small number of technical Government amendments, especially considering the size and complexity of the Bill. 
 That pattern will continue on Report, when we again hope to introduce a limited number of Government amendments, some technical and others that reflect important points that have been raised in Committee and in the wider consultation process. We think it right that the onus is on the Government to deliver our side of the bargain by introducing legislation that is in good shape. That allows Parliament's time to be spent in proper scrutiny of the thinking behind the Government's proposals. 
 I regret that certain parts of the Bill were not reached during Committee. In addition to the broad programme motion agreed after Second Reading, the Programming Sub-Committee suggested several knives within the Committee proceedings. Those knives were designed to ensure scrutiny of all parts of the Bill. They are obviously an art rather than a science. The record will show that our programming proposals could have achieved even greater scrutiny of the Bill had circumstances been different. For example, our proceedings at the end of part 2 were unfortunately cut off, leaving several clauses unscrutinised. I spoke to Committee members—I will name them if necessary—who said that approximately 15 more minutes would have been sufficient to finish that part of the Bill. Unfortunately, a series of votes in the House meant that the Programming Sub-Committee was unable to reconvene in time, so we lost that 15 minutes by the coincidence of two successive votes in the House. 
 Similarly, I regret the failure to complete the scrutiny of part 4, in particular the important provisions on youth conferencing. I regret that especially because I believe that we could have completed part 4 and scrutinised parts 5 and 6 fully, had we been able to move the knife on Tuesday night, as was suggested. Agreement could not be reached on that issue. I regret that, and I am sure that my regret is shared by the Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who, judging from his contribution on Second Reading, had an important input to make. 
 I hope that all hon. Members will be able to return to the points missed on Report, when we shall endeavour to ensure that there is sufficient time to 
 give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves. Time is at the Government's disposal, but the level of scrutiny relies, to a certain extent, on the level of co-operation. If hon. Members, in particular the official Opposition, wish to use Report to reiterate arguments about the programme motion rather than to focus on the Bill, no amount of time will be sufficient. We must look at the process of scrutinising Northern Ireland Bills, and I agree with you, Mr. Pike, on this issue. More parties are involved in the consideration of Northern Ireland Bills than in the consideration of other legislation. I will reflect further on the matter and bring any relevant points to the attention of the business managers. I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike, for saying that you will bring certain points to the attention of the Modernisation Committee. 
 I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. Our deliberations in Committee will ensure that the Bill leaves the House in an even better state than it arrived. That is the purpose of the Standing Committee, and I welcome the achievement for which all hon. Members should take credit.

Crispin Blunt: I shall make my comments in the reverse order to the Minister. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that he regrets that certain elements of the Bill have not been considered in Committee. I have already made several substantive points about the timetable, but want to put one or two more points on the record.
 The official Opposition opposed the programme on the Floor of the House and voted against it. We opposed the programme motion that was presented to the Programming Sub-Committee when we arrived at 8.30, before the first sitting of the Committee, in order to discuss the knives that were imposed on our proceedings. That resulted in the farcical position of the Government coming to appreciate that they could have completed consideration of part 2, had the knife not been inserted where it was. They then had to make desperate efforts to get the knife moved in time, but their efforts were thwarted by two consecutive Divisions in the House. We should never have been in that position in the first place. 
 From the way in which the Minister conducted himself in this and in a previous Committee of which I was a member, I know that he takes his duties in presenting Government legislation extremely seriously, and also takes seriously the contributions of members of the Committee. In many ways, he is a model Minister. He has command of his brief and can respond properly to the issues raised. Therefore, it is wholly unsatisfactory that he should be unable to do justice to this legislation, because a great chunk of it has been insufficiently considered. By my calculations, 56 clauses were considered completely, 3 were considered partly and 32 were not considered at all. 
 The problem does not relate only to this Committee, but is an issue throughout the House. We have legislation by lottery, because it is a lottery whether legislation receives consideration in Committee. That is not good enough and all of us, as parliamentarians, must address that problem. I have said enough about that, but I do not hold the Minister personally responsible. He is a victim of the system, as 
 we all are. It is up to us, as Members of this House, to sort it out. 
 Moving on to more gracious territory, I commend you, Mr. Pike, and Mr. Conway, for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I would also like to thank the Clerks, who have rendered enormous assistance to me and, I am sure, to all the other opposition parties. I would also like to commend everyone who has been involved in the process, from the review team onwards. Although this legislation involves substantial issues of principle and there are differences over it, it is much better because of the way in which it has been developed and the amount of time that has been available for consultation. 
 That consultation has not been sufficient at the end of the parliamentary process, but I want to thank the Government for making Stephen Webb and his team available to brief members of the Opposition. That was immensely useful, particularly for those of us who are not lawyers and who have to get up to speed on issues that are meant for lawyers rather than lay members of the House. Their time was much appreciated. 
 I also want to join the Minister in thanking those who have transcribed the proceedings. On one occasion, their work was immensely important and helpful, and I want to place on the record my thanks for that. I would also like to thank other members of the Committee for the way in which the Committee's business was dealt with in general. By and large it has been good natured and enjoyable, and if we had been able to give full consideration to the whole of the Bill, we would have done a proper job as parliamentarians. However, given the limits within which we have worked, I think that we have done so.

Peter Pike: Before I put the final question I would like to put a few words on the record, because I have let both sides make longer than normal contributions for the end of a Committee. It is right that those comments be recorded in the spirit in which they have been made because they have been put forward constructively, from whichever viewpoint they have been made.
 As I said in response to the earlier point of order this afternoon, the Modernisation Committee produced a report on Select Committees on Tuesday of this week. It is the intention of the Chairman of that Committee, who is the Leader of the House, to write to all Members of the House informing them of the recommendations made in that report. He will at the same time remind Members of the memorandum that he issued shortly before Christmas on proposals that will form the substantive programme of the Modernisation Committee during the next few months, and which concern major issues. 
 One of those issues will be programming. The Committee will understand that programming is governed not by Standing Orders, but by Sessional Orders, which are temporary. Clearly, the current arrangement is an experiment that is under review. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I am strongly in favour of the principle of programming. I accept that the matter must be considered in the light 
 of experience, and it will be useful to consider the comments that have been made today. 
 We can make the process work better and ensure that the House conducts its business in a more sensible way in the 21st century. We will also be able to ensure that the scrutiny of legislation is more positive and we achieve our objectives. Members are invited to make their comments to the Leader of the House, and I will see that the comments that were made at the beginning and the end of today's proceedings are conveyed to him. It is useful to have them recorded in Hansard. 
 I and my co-Chairman have enjoyed chairing this Committee. It has been interesting. I accept the thanks that have been offered to both of us and to all the others who have facilitated the proceedings, including the police, the attendants and the Clerks. Without such assistance, Committees could not function. I do not intend to drag out proceedings any longer, so I shall put the final question, which I am sure will be carried quite easily. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-nine minutes past Three o'clock.